from the hollywood-run-amuck dept

Reading through the menagerie of Techdirt posts this week led me to develop a better understanding of how some of these media companies work as well as to increase my disdain for Hollywood and their view of the consumer.

It's awesome to run a business; I don't attempt to run a business because pop music already gives me high blood pressure. I do understand certain fundamentals though, like planning for the long-term. HBO apparently doesn't understand this, and as bob so brilliantly brought out (Black Swan wins again!), the industry has set itself up into a position where it has to maintain revenues at a specific level or it will collapse. Because of this, the consumer suffers because HBO expects us to adapt to their needs.

The pattern of shortsightedness continues, though here we have a company that built itself on two things: copyright and public domain, but seems to be very focused on the copyright aspect. I haven't seen the presentation, but if I were the gambling type, I'd place my bets on the fact that it will be geared towards stronger copyright law and it's relation to creativity. If this proves true, then it just adds insult to injury with Disney's already stellar record of denying the public domain, and by extension creators everywhere, the content it needs.

To me, this article focuses on two things: foresight and analysis. These two aspects are key to marketing effectively, but yet Hollywood is focused on preventing stage six, which basically means their time and effort is spent trying to prevent people from taking things for free instead of nipping the process in the bud by seeing what they can change earlier on to make people want to buy. Frankly, the latter seems like it has a more sustainable, long-term effect while the former just sustains the current model. This is, once again, an example of why Steve Jobs was an awesome businessman, and Hollywood is a terrible child.

I don't always agree with your ass ass, Mike, but you always make valid points despite what Average Joe had to say.

I'm very much pro-gamergate int he scheme of things, and I think you're right. There are lot of outlets that use it as an excuse for clickbait, namely Gawker. Even the movement itself is mired in some ridiculous in-fighting, but I think ethics in journalism need to be a virtue all outlets aspire to.

I also agree and respect the fact that Techdirt does not cover stupid, dramatic subjects just for clicks.

Anyway, just wanted to show my appreciation for your work even if you are a stone cold hard ass.

By the way, I'm surprised you guys haven;t condemned Gawker for this crap, clickbait tends to be there MO.

I do this too. I've seen negative reviews where people rate something with one star over something fairly trivial (it's unrelated to Amazon, but a local gym here in Colorado received a negative review because the guy claimed they would never change the channel from Fox News), and I'm sure thee's plenty of these on Amazon too.

It's every company's prerogative to look out for their own business. I think it's pretty obvious Aereo wouldn't base the foundation of their business on something illegal if it meant the company could get shut down.

That leads me to believe that they were trying to act within the constraints of the law, but it was less risk to their growth to take the route where they're being perceived as "dirty thieves" by the media companies.

Then again, they could have taken the other route and end up collapsing under the weight of the licensing fees.